Talk:George VI of Britain
One of my favorite D-Day stories involves George. It seems Churchill had this bizarre notion that he needed to be on one of the warships in the Channel during the invasion. Ike was horrified by this. He and Churchill were good friends, but he couldn't change Churchill's mind. So Ike contacted George, who simply said: "Leave Winston to me." He then told Churchill something to the effect that since Churchill was going, the King just HAD to be there. Churchill was now in the same position Ike was, and backed off. Seemed like a good light story for the 65th Anniversary of D-Day +1. TR 00:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC) :Yeah, I remember that story. Turtle Fan 01:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Petty Emperor I have no recollection of the Lizards describing George or any other constitutional monarch as a "petty emperor." :Ah, okay, but it's still not explicitly clear they say so because he's a constitutional monarch. It might just have been that the UK is very small. Hell, it might be a jab at George's character. Turtle Fan 13:47, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :I believe the notes should address the matter. TR 13:47, October 24, 2010 (UTC) By the way, in HB we get quite a few hints that the Lizard monarchy isn't nearly so absolutist as we'd been led to believe in the other seven books, including the Emperor himself admitting as much. Now HB introduced a fair amount of discontinuity into the series, but it might not be so out of place here. They also talk about how, while members of the imperial court and others in positions of political power know that imperial decrees don't carry all the weight they might, those who know this fact conspire to keep it hidden from the common rabble. Atvar knew this fact all along (He even told Yeager that the Emperor who had gone through the ritual of formally ordering him to conquer the Tosev system had been "uninterested in policy," ie a hollow figurehead), it's unclear whether the shiplords knew, and certainly no one below shiplord rank would have known. And even more certainly, no one would have shared this info with the Tosevites. Straha was the only one with high enough rank that he might have known and enough disaffection with the Lizard establishment to have a motive for doing this, but notice that he never did. Reffet would doubtless have known as much as Atvar knew, but I guess they never felt the need to discuss it in private. Turtle Fan 03:12, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :Huh. I guess I should read HB and have done with it. TR 13:47, October 24, 2010 (UTC) ::It's not terrible. It's flawed, and introduces some discontinuity, but it does add something to the series. By the end of Col it had seemed clear that the humans would overtake the Lizards sooner or later, and the story of what would happen when they did sort of needed to be told for the series to have closure. Home is not much like I'd imagined it based on the first seven books, but this can be easily handwaved by assuming the Lizards were not entirely faithful in the ways they described it. They could have any number of reasons for this, from a conspiracy to misrepresent the empire to humans, to the way homesickness causes us to overemphasize in our memories certain elements of the place we miss while downplaying others. ::And if you read it, we'd have a fresh set of eyes on the writing of HB-relevant articles. I tried to knock them out shortly after we took over here, but having read the book a year and a half earlier--and it having failed to impress itself upon my memory much in the intervening time--I didn't get very far. I do try to chip away around the edges, but. . . . Turtle Fan 14:04, October 24, 2010 (UTC) Quality Article I'm so proud of this article. I think that, if George himself could see it, he'd say "Ah, ah, umm, ah-I, mah, muh, da da dah, ah, hah. . . . " Turtle Fan 04:02, March 31, 2011 (UTC) :I'm waiting for the DVD. Mainly because the nearest theater is 50 miles away and is a dump, and the nearest nice one is 100 miles away. TR 19:31, March 31, 2011 (UTC) ::My theater recently became a "dine-in theater." Meaning they raised their prices to levels I wouldn't pay to see The Godfather. They also installed a huge-ass bar as soon as you walk in, I guess for people who really can't wait for a beer. . . . Sends a wonderful message to the teenagers who are forever hanging around out front. Turtle Fan 21:04, March 31, 2011 (UTC) TWTPE Writing those hypotheticals earlier on various developments that could alter the royal family's fates got me thinking. Specifically it reminded me of a British friend who once said that her main reason for supporting the monarchy was that, in the event of the failue of democracy at the Parliamentary level, the Queen would have an authority that could be used to correct the situation, sort of like Rama IX of Thailand did in 1992 when a certain general attempted a military coup against the elected PM and it was the king who forced him to back down. Whenever I read up on British politics, this is an idea that pops up from time to time, and there seem to be a few extreme situations spelled out in the constitution (well, to the extent that anything is spelled out in that constitution) in which the monarch could override the government. So I'm wondering if George here might try that against Wilson at some point. By all accounts he was extremely pro-democracy and his ability to provide a certain kind of moral leadership in specific situations is well known. Think he might find a way to lend his support to Walsh's new friends? Wait till Wilson forgets to dot an i, and invite Cartland to form a new government? If I were HT and I wanted the end of the story to involve Britain having its democratic institutions redeemed in a way that didn't call for a large amount of pain and suffering, that's how I'd do it. (A vote of no-confidence would be simpler, but it wouldn't pack the same punch. When it happened in IatD, my first thought was "If that's all it took to get the quasi-fascists out, why didn't they do it sooner?") Alternately, if I were HT and I wanted to show things in Britain getting much worse in a hurry, I might have George VI attempt to rein in Wilson, and Wilson says "Fuck you, try and stop me," essentially throwing out the constitution and setting himself up as a totalitarian. Then that provides the impetus for Walsh's pals to decide that there's no way to salvage the situation by working within the system and they must prepare to launch a coup d'etat. Turtle Fan 02:43, October 10, 2011 (UTC) :I think you've made viable prediction as to how the course of the UK will go. It makes sense to try another non-confidence vote or two, but I think we'll see Cartland and Walsh get an audience with George (which would be kind of nice for our purposes). A coup may not be necessary, even if Wilson tells George off--that would seem to be a "at long last, have you no shame" moment that would spell the end of Wilson's credibility. ::Yes, that could provide the impetus for the British people to wake up and realize that they've been duped by some deeply unpleasant political operators, and exercise their civil rights before said civil rights are curtailed irretrievably. That would provide a happy ending to that part of the story of a sort that doesn't depend on things getting worse before they get better. With the across-the-board milieu of bleakness that TBS ended on, it would be something of a reversal. Turtle Fan 20:22, October 10, 2011 (UTC) :But I'm looking foward to finding out. That is in itself, surprising. TR 15:46, October 10, 2011 (UTC) ::I know, I'm likewise surprised by how excited this story now has me. I haven't felt the need to make a prediction about an ongoing HT story out of the blue (that is, not counting some new piece of information, like learning the book's title, seeing its cover, reading an advanced review, etc) since before TL-191 jumped the shark. Didn't even do so for Atlantis, which I enjoyed infinitely more than I did the first half of TWTPE. Turtle Fan 20:22, October 10, 2011 (UTC) In The Hot War It occurs to me that George's health was terrible for the last two or three years of his life. Another global war and radiation aren't going to be helpful. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if George abruptly dies a year early, la FDR in WW. Moreover, given the use of atomics, I wouldn't be surprised if George VI was succeeded by someone other than Elizabeth. TR (talk) 22:19, May 31, 2015 (UTC) :Hmm, interesting thought. Some of his siblings were rather . . . colorful. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:15, June 1, 2015 (UTC) ::It's just a random thought. I imagine we're going to get quite a few tossed off references to various HoS/HoG (one thing TWPE was actually pretty good for in the early going), and I'm sure several of those will be "President/King/Prime Minister That Guy was among the dead." The British Royal family would be less vulnerable than some, but since we have a POV in Dover trying to deal with fall-out, they are still vulnerable. TR (talk) 17:46, June 1, 2015 (UTC) :::It's a good thought, and I do hope you're right. Throwaway references really were one of the only things that kept me going in early TWTPE, that and the belief that Peggy Druce was on the verge of becoming the series' breakout character. *sigh* ::::I had put together a response lamenting TPWE's lack of characters who rose to something like greatness, but I think that horse has been flogged to glue. Suffice to say, THW can only impress me on that score. TR (talk) 19:12, June 2, 2015 (UTC) :::Oh, and an amendment to my earlier suggestion: I'm so used to thinking about HT work through the lens of WWII that I'd forgotten that Prince Charles was born in 1948 (and his sister in 1950). Now it's possible that no place in Britain might be considered safe once Stalin decides to go all in, but I'd expect them to make a greater effort to minimize the danger to a three-year-old than they would to an adult. So even if Elizabeth does get knocked off, that leaves Charles, Anne, and potentially Princess Margaret (assuming she doesn't die with Elizabeth) before the Duke of Gloucester gets his chance. Then come Gloucester's two sons, then the late Duke of Kent's two sons and daughter (the daughter was the middle child but the younger son still came ahead of her in the order of succession thanks to ancient sexism), then the Countess of Harewood. By that point I'd imagine HT would have decided it's not worth going any farther. ::::That is a good point. I had to remind myself that Elizabeth was of age in 1950, so the early death of George would mean the generally unremarkable early ascension of Elizabeth (unremarkable in comparison with the Eleventy-first person in the line of succession taking the throne because everyone else in between is dead; still pretty traumatic in the context of WW3). I'd completely forgotten that she'd been producing heirs herself before 1950; in my research, I immediately jumped Henry, Duke of Gloucester, and wondered if HT could favor us with another Henry IX. But we could conceivably wind up with another Charles III instead, especially as HT now has had young Akihito take the throne early. TR (talk) 19:12, June 2, 2015 (UTC) :::Charles has spent his entire OTL life waiting in the wings for a crown he may never get to wear, so it would be an amusing irony if HT drew up an ATL version who's destined to spend his entire life wearing that crown. Of course, even in the 1950s the British monarchy entailed responsibilities that would be far beyond a toddler, so you'd have to have a regency (the first since the, umm, Regency Era). The regent could be almost anyone. I'd imagine we'd be more likely to see an oddball there. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:43, June 2, 2015 (UTC) ::::Well, the Duke of Gloucester would have been Elizabeth's regent if George had died before she turned 18 (didn't happen, of course). So there is that historical OTL precedent. Having a Duke of Gloucester as regent to a boy king is the kind of joke HT likes. TR (talk) 19:12, June 2, 2015 (UTC) :::::If they go with the next adult in the line of succession (as Gloucester would have been in the scenario you mention), assuming that only Elizabeth has died then that's Princess Margaret. She and Elizabeth spent most of WWII in the same place, as children will; adult siblings are more likely to separate, so if we assume that whatever killed Elizabeth got Margaret as well, that could be another case of forgetting that WWII is over. :::::: In retrospect, it almost certainly is a case of forgetting that WWII is over and that George's children are adults in 1950. So, yeah, I should probably keep in mind that even if Elizabeth winds up in the wrong place at the wrong time, and even if her children are with her, it doesn't automatically follow that Margaret will be there, too. TR (talk) 22:52, June 3, 2015 (UTC) :::::::You know, I think if HT is going down this route at all, then it will be King Charles with a regent. There's just nothing about Queen Margaret that would capture the imaginations of his readership, and if he's that indifferent to whether or not we give a shit about what he considers to be major developments . . . then it's going to be a long series. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:45, June 4, 2015 (UTC) :::::Even if Margaret does live, Gloucester's still the better choice, really. Margaret would be just 20 or 21 herself, barely of age, but still old enough that she'd developed a reputation as a jet-setting debutante (justly or otherwise). The Duke, on the other hand, exuded a sense of gravitas that would be desperately needed in such a crisis, and his recently-completed service as Governor-General of Australia would have given him valuable experience as a monarchical stand-in. And yes, the Duke of Gloucester ruling for the boy king would be in line with HT's puckish sense of humor. So much so that he'd no doubt have some character or other go well out of his or her way to call attention to it. :::::But while Gloucester was healthy and hale as of the POD, it would be as easy to kill him off as it would any other VIP once the entire island becomes a Marxist shooting gallery. If he can't take the regency, the choices become less obvious. The next adult in line is Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood, as I'd mentioned. She's . . . something of a wild card. Otherwise, Edward VIII? No, I can't imagine they'd go for that. But if not either of them, then it's on to the second cousins and such. :::::Or a royal in-law. That happened sometimes in the old days: Edward VI's regent was his late mother's older brother, one of James VI's (they had a high mortality rate) was his paternal grandfather. Prince Philip? Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon? Some relation of one or the other of them? :::::Okay, I overspoke when I said it could be "almost anyone," but casting wider and wider nets is the tradition at this point in the run-up to a new release. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:11, June 3, 2015 (UTC) Here's Something Else to Consider The nature of a parliament is that executive authority is both subordinate and accountable to the legislature. As the most recent chapters of US history keep showing, an American president whose legislative agenda keeps being declared DOA at the Capitol is at a distinct disadvantage, but does have other options. Not so a Prime Minister; in the same situation, all he or she can look forward to is a series of no-confidence votes leading up to an inglorious fall. (Which is why I for one am grateful that the UK did end up with a majority government after all, even if unalloyed Tories might not have been my first choice.) Now with the UK facing such a deadly serious crisis, I'd imagine that most of the PM's and Cabinet's agenda will consist of non-controversial emergency measures, and with WWII so fresh in everyone's memories I'd even go so far as to predict there's every chance they'd do another all-party coalition for the duration of the war. :I think a national government is a near certainty, although I do wonder if will Attlee be seen as the right person for the job, when Churchill will almost certainly be chomping at the bit to get back in as a war PM, all the while saying (rightfully so, in this TL) "I TOLD YOU SO!" TR (talk) 22:52, June 3, 2015 (UTC) ::Yeah, that would be a source of friction. I hope HT does something with it, rather than have some no-name character declare that they sorted it out offstage and fail to elaborate on the details. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:45, June 4, 2015 (UTC) But even then, you've got to keep going before hundreds of MPs and a like number of Peers to introduce bills, make endless reports, and at a minimum engage in pro forma debate. However: London's in the cross-hairs. Even if it's not a target of Stalin's first strike, the entire city will be holding its breath, knowing that the RAF could report an incoming flight of Bulls at any time. In such a situation you'd just have to evacuate key military and political figures from the capital. But where do you evacuate the MPs? Move them as a group to some other city or town, and as soon as Soviet intelligence finds out where they've gone (which couldn't possibly take long) they're in as much danger as they were before. If it's even possible to create some top-secret bunker in the middle of nowhere that can accommodate the entire Parliament--and that's a big "if"--the maintenance of that secrecy would be in direct opposition to the Cabinet's ability to communicate with everyone it would need to. Sounds like a constitutional crisis is inevitable. And to whom do the Brits turn in times of constitutional crisis? Well the ultimate source of all of Westminster's authority is the concept of the King-in-Parliament. The best option may well be to allow royal prerogatives long since delegated to revert to the crown, and for the king or queen or regent to rubber-stamp the PM's orders much more efficiently than Parliament possibly could. If it's George or Elizabeth, there'd really be no reason to fear that, once the crisis had passed, the crown would be reluctant to allow the situation to revert to normal once the war was over. If young Charles ends up with a mischievous regent, then there could potentially be a greater danger; but even in the worst case scenario, better to have to fight another Glorious Revolution after winning WWIII than to have another October Revolution imposed at gunpoint after losing. Actually, I wonder what provisions were made for this impasse in OTL. It would have been a distinctly realistic possibility for much of the Cold War. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:11, June 3, 2015 (UTC) :I was wondering what actual British contingencies existed during the Cold War as I read your post. I was aware of the "Diefenbunker" here in Canada (named after John Diefenbaker, the PM at the time) but it was developed in the late 50s and so nearly a decade later than the start of the novel. A bit of Googling got me "Operation Unthinkable", a dual plan ordered developed by Churchill at the end of WW II to either attack or defend against the USSR but this would be before the Soviets developed nuclear weapons. I also found "Central Government War Headquarters" which was something similar to the "Diefenbunker", an large underground bunker (or small city, pop. 4000) outside London to evacuate senior government officials. However, like the Canadian plan, this was also developed in the late 1950s. I haven't found anything for the early 50s which may mean there weren't any formal plans for a nuclear war then. This isn't that unreasonable since the Soviet development of the Bomb did take the West by surprise so new contingencies would take some time to develop. ML4E (talk) 21:07, June 3, 2015 (UTC) :::Thank you, this is interesting, and is more than I was aware of. I do agree that it makes sense it would have taken them awhile to come up with contingency plans; the USSR's nuclear capability did indeed come as quite a shock to NATO, and even then, it was awhile before the USA, UK, or USSR had enough nukes, and reliable enough delivery systems, to ensure that no major enemy city would be safe. And for Londoners who'd survived the Blitz in particular, it would probably take them awhile to wrap their heads around how much worse a nuclear attack would be. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:45, June 4, 2015 (UTC) ::Obviously, HT has given the issue some passing thought. We know that Westminster was evacuated before the Germans dropped their bomb on London in 191, and enough MPs were present at whatever secret location they wound up in to oust Churchill and put in Horace Wilson. Admittedly, there was some hand-waving there, since I don't think HT ever bothered to actually say where they wound up. I'm also fairly certain Parliament was evacuated during WW, but I can't find details. :::I have no recollection of the latter. As for the former, the nuclear portion of GWII was not so devastating as most nuclear wars in any timeline should be. No one seemed overly concerned about the prospects of building any of the effective cities. There was confidence that it was at least possible to defeat a nuclear attack altogether (justified, since the Germans shot down a British bomber) and when Philadelphia got hit, Congress just sort of shrugged and continued doing its business out of Independence Hall. So did the rest of the US government. :::But you're right, HT is at least somewhat prepared to consider the question. I'm interested to see how he solves it. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:45, June 4, 2015 (UTC) ::For no reason I can articulate, I suspect there will evacuations to some of the same places used during the Blitz. I imagine that will go quite badly. TR (talk) 22:52, June 3, 2015 (UTC) :::Yeah, it probably would. If they use the same fallback locations as they did in 1940, Soviet intelligence will know all about them and will send in the Bulls as a matter of course. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:45, June 4, 2015 (UTC) George VI in Joe Steele George gets one, throw-away reference in the novel. Again, I question the new succession box entry for the story especially since it is assuming its the same as OTL without anything in the novel about it one way or the other. ML4E (talk) 17:00, July 6, 2016 (UTC) ItPoME Lit Com I'm not seeing the value in this one. It goes without saying that George's fate would have been drastically altered; that's part of the definition of a POD. By this rationale, we should have Lit coms for his wife, his daughter, his idiot brother, various members of Parliament, Hirohito, FDR, etc.. But we don't, nor should we start. HT didn't address George, so we don't need to, either. TR (talk) 20:51, December 30, 2017 (UTC) :He was a head of state, and has a named eventual successor in Henry IX. That makes him logically relevant, although just barely. See Alexander Stephens in Southern Victory.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 21:06, December 30, 2017 (UTC) ::You addressed none of my points. Why should we presume George VI in a novel that never once names him, and why shouldn't we then include elaborate "we don't know" comments in every other HoS/HoG extant in 1940? ::Alexander Stephens is unique because of the complete lack of references to the man, which is frankly peculiar given the CSA's emphasis on political dynasties and Stephens' own OTL ambitions. We did not include that lit com simply because there are named successors. Moreover, the POD in TL-191 is well defined, which isn't true for ItPoME. However, if the choice comes down to getting rid of Alexander Stephens lit com, and heading lit com for George off at the pass, I'm willing to do that. TR (talk) 21:18, December 30, 2017 (UTC) :::I see no point in this new sub-section, nor the creation of a new ItPoME sub-section in Monarch of the United Kingdom. Both sets of changes should be rolled back. ML4E (talk) 21:40, December 30, 2017 (UTC) ::::Dom Pedro II of Brazil in Southern Victory.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 20:46, December 31, 2017 (UTC) ::::::Again, in a series in which has a well defined POD vs. a rough "the Axis won" POD. But I'm willing to cut that lit com too. TR (talk) 20:50, December 31, 2017 (UTC) I believe that Jonathan is now falling into the trap we fell into with The Gladiator. In that novel Turtledove didn't care about the details of why the USSR won in the story and so didn't work it out in detail. But we assumed JFK, Castro and Khrushchev were in power at the PoD. Likewise, ItPoME has a PoD some sixty years earlier but Turtledove wanted to tell the story of secret Jews living undercover in Nazi Germany two generations later. I doubt the PoD is well thought out and a case can be made that Germany won WWII because Edward DID NOT abdicate. This means assuming George was on the throne is in error and this new sub-section should be rolled back. ML4E (talk) 16:51, January 2, 2018 (UTC)